zlacker

If it "was AI" it should be easy enough for him to prove by pulling up his account on whatever AI video generation service he used and showing the generation in his account history.

(I do not think it was AI.)

>>simonw+(OP)
I don't think it was AI either but I don't think that would hold up in court.

>>simonw+(OP)
Maybe he did it with a local model!

(Yeah, me neither.)

>>simonw+(OP)
Maybe he doesn't have to prove that though. If he can find an expert witness who will make claims that based on their expert analysis it is possible this video is AI generated, and he does not testify himself, then that may be enough to introduce reasonable doubt.

>>simonw+(OP)
True, and I agree with you on it not being AI, however, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not for a defendant to prove innocence.

But you are correct, if it was in fact AI, showing how he (or someone else) made it at the time would certainly help get him off the hook.

Guy could've probably picked a better place to base jump anyway, national parks are notorious for having a billion laws that don't really exist anywhere else.

You can't even take your cat white river rafting on the grand canyon >:( https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/7.4

>>Sharli+v1
That would also be easy to demonstrate, if true.

>>simonw+(OP)
But shouldn't it be the prosecution proving the video is real?

>>dragon+Tb
How?

>>simonw+(OP)
Also I’d be surprised if the only evidence introduced by the prosecution is the video. There may be other eyewitnesses, evidence of equipment usage, communications with others prior to the event about his intent, and so forth.

>>627467+nc
Yes, but only if the judge who gets the case believes in silly things like "Federal Rules of Evidence."

>>627467+nc
I'm not sure they have to bother. The video could be fake, and they still committed the crime. People certainly use AI and other tools to "enhance" video.

The article mentions evidence placing them at the scene of the crime, wearing a matching outfit, and they can probably find witnesses.

>>simonw+(OP)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

>>Sunshi+u9
> You can't even take your cat white river rafting on the grand canyon

What are the chances that rule came about because of a dead/lost pet or because of some wildlife that was eaten? I'm 50/50 it was either.

>>Sunshi+u9
You can't even take your cat white river rafting on the grand canyon

I've done Grand Canyon whitewater (part in an OC1, part in a raft). A law against animal cruelty isn't a bad thing.

>>otterl+Yc
By showing your workflow and that you can regenerate it 1:1 on demand.

>>627467+nc
Umm, no? In a criminal trial, a defendant cannot just claim an alibi like: "I was in another country", without showing some form of documentation like airplane tickets, credit card charges to hotels or restaurants, etc.

>>Sharli+tq1
That's making a LOT of assumptions, like that he saved the seed and so on.

>>Kruton+r02
Not just that, but a strong defense would also want to show evidence that the user actually ran those commands, for example, by providing shell history files.

>>627467+nc
They have to prove the case to the jury "beyond reasonable doubt". The jury are at liberty to decide that they don't believe an unsupported claim by the defence, and that the evidence provided by the prosecution is sufficient. As judges sometimes say at the start of a case, the standard is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond all possibility of being wrong.